A new version of D&D is dawning that intends to unite the fractured fan base, as currently D&D is playing underdog to Pathfinder, a game which itself was based on D&D 3rd edition rules. Imagine if the legal vagaries allowed an old partner of Microsoft to make a Windows 7 variant which then beat Windows 8 in sales, and you're pretty close to the situation with D&D and Pathfinder at this point.

The makers of D&D have long had a problem with gamers finding it easy to ignore their releases of new editions. The old books are still available, as well as the aforementioned Pathfinder, and any one of these has enough adventures, class variations, and settings that anybody with a normal life as well as a gaming life would not be able to completely devour them in a lifetime. D&D 5th Edition aims to fix that by appealing to fans of all versions of the D&D experience and thus get them to start buying books again. I was able to get the new Player's Handbook thanks to a limited early release, and despite being pretty firmly in the Pathfinder camp I was really impressed with it - enough to switch our home game over to the new system. Here are eight reasons why...

1. D&D 3rd Edition Is Fucking Old

I've been playing this game since 2000. I had just reached drinking age and people were trying to convince me all the computers in the world were going to go belly up because of the year change. Apparently, toasters had a secret calendar inside them that was going bad. They called it "Y2K" and it got popular enough that in a crowning moment of triumph/shame Steve Jackson Games actually published a supplement for it. Which I own, by the way.

The point is, it was a long-ass time ago. I've been playing some version or another of this game system for almost 15 years. Even the Pathfinder iteration came out in 2008. I'll still play Pathfinder here and there, even buying the books as
they are released. However, it's getting to be more of a niche thing for me because I've played it so much that it's become more nostalgic than exciting. There's nothing wrong with older games or even old versions of D&D: 2nd Edition AD&D from 1989 is still my favorite. Still, I can't deny my urge for something new and exciting that's slightly more social than a video game but doesn't involve leaving my house.

2. A Better Approach to Archetypes

Seongbin Im

Go left for a Fighter who can only punch stuff, right for a Wizard with a handgun. Neither of these are fake Pathfinder examples.

Both D&D and Pathfinder use classes as one of the primary identifiers of your character and what he or she can do, i.e. Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, etc. The prime gaming party is supposed to be one sneaky person who finds traps and hurts things real bad, one who is tough, one who heals everyone (or "leads" them when they got a concept facelift for D&D 4th) and one who blows up your enemies. So you have this team of people who run around murdering things and stealing stuff. It works great!

It is a little limited, though. It's not like everyone who steals for a living is the same. So, Archetypes come in to make your Rogue a Scout. This is a good thing, but Pathfinder has an awkward way of doing it where you replace little pieces of your character one at a time. You can have more than one Archetype, but only if they don't replace the same class feature. So get ready to put them side by side and read line by line for overlap. More dangerously, they require you to trade character abilities you shouldn't trade. A Poison Master Rogue might not be able to find traps any more in exchange for learning how to poison stuff. So now no one can find traps. This is a bad thing, especially since poison sucks in Pathfinder. D&D 5th's solution? Well, everyone gets a single free Archetype and no one can trade away their essential class features. Much, much easier.

3. Less Magic Items

The sunglasses let them see in the dark, the hats protect them from critical hits, and the black outfits are +5 to Stealth!

In the '80s and '90s, you'd roll randomly for treasure on a chart and if you got really lucky you'd get some kind of really awesome magic sword that could pretty much carry you along for the rest of your adventuring life. This could be a problem for people who took their gaming a little more seriously, as the lucky guy could end up being way more powerful than people who hadn't gotten that one good roll. The solution in D&D 3rd Edition was to decide which items could be combined with each other and to assume that every level you had a certain amount of magical swag on hand.

This was logical but also resulted in gear being a big part of the game, causing arguments with Dungeon Masters who didn't understand the math and just spending a bunch of time writing your stuff down and figuring out the bonuses. Not to mention the occasional feeling that your items did the heavy lifting and wondering why your character went everywhere festooned in magic gear. Who wears a cloak, a belt, gauntlets, two rings, armor and a hat to the beach? Well, your character should or he's gonna die (or worse, you'll have to recalculate him on the fly for the fight).

D&D 5th has substantially reduced the amount of gear you need at any given time. This is a huge benefit for your sanity and you look a little less like a SWAT team member who is lost in Fantasytopia. It also lets your character use her father's sword instead of throwing it away as soon as she helps ice a dragon as her old sword won't do anyone any good anymore. This is a great thing, as there really aren't very many source materials that load people down with items like D&D does. It's strange that way.

4. Less Exponential Growth

In the really old days, Armor Class had an absolute lowest number of -10 (low numbers were good, don't ask) and by the higher levels everyone from Zeus to Johnny McCheater would have the same likelihood of being hit. This was awesome except when it wasn't, because at high levels you hit everything all the time as you'd presumably been getting a steady stream of random items (see number 3 above), and in my experience bonuses to hit quickly outpaced that limited number anyway. The solution in 3rd Edition was to make Armor Class and "To Hit" bonuses uncapped so you could go to the moon if you wanted.

The problem with this is that everything becomes linear; a more powerful monster might require you roll 20 higher to hit it than an appropriate level one. In order to keep from constantly wiping out the party, a system was added so you could know what level monsters to throw at your characters. Basically, it leads to feeling like a video game where everything is secretly resizing itself to your character as you go. It also adds a lot of complexity as the higher numbers you need start to come from more and more sources (items, spells from friendly casters, situations, your characters abilities), which adds to more tracking. In D&D 5th, a 20th level Fighter has a +6 to hit instead of a Pathfinder Fighter's +20, which means the math will be less linear and that tougher monsters will need more to go on than just another +3 to hit, armor, and damage.

6: Pathfinder has a Hero Points system, allowing the GM to award Roleplaying with a mechanical bonus. 5th edition has an inspiration point system... allowing the GM to award RP with a mechanical bonus. :l

The only problem here is, you overlook how easy it is to make or restrict what ever you want as a DM or a player with DM approval in Pathfinder. They even provide tools to help. From what I can tell, 5th is completely locked down and requires you to buy the books (Which is fine, support and all that) but it limits the creative potential. That is pretty much why I think Pathfinder/3.5 is going to be king for years to come.

Dunno, I'm going to be be playing my first 5E game next week (after fifteen years of 3/3.5 and two years of Pathfinder), and I really like the look of it so far. It's slimmed way down, and brings back some of the AD&D feeling. It reduces a lot of needless complications in the numbers system, and allows the DM and the players to react faster which will hopefully lead to better and more roleplaying. I'll appreciate an actual D&D game that still feels like D&D but allows you to play a bit more like WOD. Just saying.

These reasons are obtuse! Pathfinder is our game of choice. D&D is pretty much dead as it was too little too late. D&D still follows their old sales model of making people buy the DMs Guide, Players Handbook, and Monster Manual to play. Smells like foolish corporate greed to me. All Hail King PATHFINDER!

I.M.H. it's not a really good article. I don't feel particularly invited to try out DD5. Mainly because the article dwells on unimportant and rather predictable details. Nothing in there that blows my mind.

What is important for a good RPG are the core mechanics, the things that you could not add, remove, think up, balance, calculate yourself but that requires a professional team of developers and play-testers. From this article I get the impression it is more of the same, just a bit better. I need a good reason to switch, not the stuff I can fix myself.

I disagree with more or less everything you've said, which essentially boils down to "I don't like complicated things, especially maths."

It is perfectly understandable that many people don't enjoy the insane complexities of 3.P. Spending hours upon hours working on your character sheets and developing your "build" is certainly not for everyone.

That said, you don't have to play Pathfinder or any other 3E game at such an intensive level of simulation. I have successfully played Pathfinder with 8-year olds.

Having more options is always better than the alternative.

That goes for Pathfinder's kitchen sink setting as well. Yeah, it's a mash of every kind of fantasy you can think of, but most people don't run their campaigns across 3 continents and 12 planes, so at best you're only exposed to one or two distinct environments and entirely unaware that while you're going against the vampire king, there are robots roaming the lands further north.

Pathfinder and 5th edition are both good systems, but whereas 5e appeals mainly to people looking for a more casual or easy-entry experience, Pathfinder has the potential to appeal to everyone with a good enough Game Master.

Both systems have many flaws too, of course. So many in fact that I can't in good conscience recommend either without a healthy portion of house rules.

Still, the fact that playing Pathfinder is free and all the rules are easily accessible wins out every single time.

Another thing you can't do in pathfinder ; I had 6 friends come over to play 5e. None of them had a character and didn't know how to make one they all had one in about 30 minutes. I'm pretty sure you can't do that in pathfinder. I understand the Group that likes Pathfinder will most likely never stop enjoying it , but the reason i play 5e is that its just a tool for me to bring friends over and have a good time. It's easy for me to write and adventure for , DM , be a player. I see it as simplicity that allows fun role playing to come out while others think its bland and flavorless. Simply put I think that Pathfinder is in itself a game , while 5e is a tool that allows me to hangout with friends and family.

@masokaso78 -- nope you can do that with Pathfinder. Mind you you'll be using PCGen or some other tool to generate the characters, but everything that your character can do and how it works is clearly spelled out on the sheet that PCGen prints. Takes about 5 mins to create a level one character from scratch, and less to level up.

Not trying to write an ad for PCGen, just pointing out that quick character generation can be done with Pathfinder. If it's simplicity you want, try Catan... or better yet Monolopy

This article realistically should be named "8 reasons why D&D 5e is DIFFERENT than Pathfinder." Not better.Better implies that the system has done something new or improved in some tremendous way, and honestly, it hasn't. I'm going to break down the ways in which D&D 5e has changed anything.

1) They simplified the way Armor works, but in the end it's really not all that different, it just means that you can't have a super-dex based person still getting dex bonuses while wearing fullplate. The armor values themselves didn't change, they just made the math easier on you (a recurring theme.)

2) They implemented a background system that was somewhat meaningful. This too isn't all that new, other systems (and even some 3rd party pathfinder content) have been doing it for years.

3) They brought back race variants. This is not new, in fact it's not even slightly new. But it's back, so, yay I suppose?

4) They took out Item Crafting from the game to make magic items more meaningful. This is pretty much the only change I'm 100% on board with. I like having magic items mean something instead of having the wizard in the party go AND FREE LOOT FOR EVERYONE!!1!!!1!

5) A number crunch. They haven't really changed much from 3e and Pathfinder in the way of how the attack/damage/AC systems work, they just crunched the numbers to make them smaller. A pathfinder fighter at level 20 has +20 to hit, while +6 in 5. Oh look, but he can still get feats, and magic items, and whatnot to improve his to hit rating. So in all actuality, they didn't really CHANGE anything. They just REDUCED the size of the numbers to make doing the math less intimidating. SO now when I want to know my to hit I don't go "Okay, 20+1 from this feat and 2 from this feat..." you swap out the 20 with a 6. IN the end, not much is different.

Overall, I"m disappointed with this article. I was interested to see if there was some genuine pieces that I'd missed about 5e to make me more interested, but all it ended up being was the Author talking about "Pathfinder has too much stuff that ruins my experience". Man, if your games go all wacky (and I've seen games like that), have you considered playing in a different game? Pathfinder has all that content to give people options, not to force you to play a Robot Guntank Gunslinger from Mars. If you want a more "classic" experience, play a more "classic" game, talk to your GM about it. I know my group almost exclusively runs more "classic" games, with only the occasional hint of something wackier going on. But at the same time, I enjoy having the ability to say "Hey guys, let's fuck around tonight and run some absurd 1-shot, roll up whatever character you want, aaaaaaaaaand go."

Mind you, with the following I don't intend to tell anyone that Pathfinder is the only true way and no one should ever play D&D 5e. I like it enough, and simply think that choosing between the two basically depends on what you like, what you want to accomplish and a lot other too personal things that don't automatically translate to "this is better, that is worse". Personally, I still prefer Pathfinder, but that's me.

Anyway, this article has a long list of misleading informations which make the "8 reasons why 5e is better" actually "1 thing 5e does better plus a lot of short-sighted blabbering".

#1 The article starts in the truly worst way. How can anyone take all of this seriously, if it starts like that? "I want something new, doesn't matter if it's good or not, I'm just bored." That's what it's telling.

Well, sex is a shitzillion years old, and still everyone's favourite past-time. Just saying.

Being new doesn't equate to being better.

#2 This one got it all wrong. First, it goes by the assumption that two things want to be the same just because two different systems use the same name for them: "archetype". Well, forget about Pathfinder's archetypes, first introduced in a supplement book, and look at the Core book, instead. Each and every of the base classes in Pathfinder has a huge customization span, which essentially gives you the ability to build any "archetype" you like, and it is not limited to one or two archetypes detailed in the class' pages; it gives you the basic abilities, and the pieces you can choose to add to obtain countless combinations.

The things that Pathfinder calls archetypes are just additional pieces that you can choose from and which replace the class' basic ability because it's thematically appropriate and if you choose to take them. It's not like you're forced to have an archetype, in Pathfinder.

But this one is the funniest part: "More dangerously, they require you to trade character abilities you
shouldn't trade. A Poison Master Rogue might not be able to find traps
any more in exchange for learning how to poison stuff. So now no one can
find traps." Beside the fact that, as said, nothing compels you to take an archetype, there are three things particularly worth nothing (I'll stick to the Rogue example, but of course the same goes for everything else): 1) if you want to gain something (in this case, poison usage ability) without sacrificing a base class feature, there are other ways than archetypes, usually feats or prestige classes (Assassin, for example); 2) it makes perfect sense that if you learnt something you didn't have time to learn something else, and while the Rogue class is by itself an archetype (semantically speaking), it's just natural that each individual Rogue is different. Like a Fighter is good with swords and sucks with bows, and another is the opposite, a Rogue might be adept at finding traps while another lacks that ability, nothing odd about it; 3) "So now no one can
find traps." I don't even know where to start with that hilarious statement. Well, first it assumes every group needs a trapfinder, as if the game is standardized in a way where each gaming group MUST have someone playing a Rogue, even if no one in that specific gaming group likes it, and it must be a trapfinder-type Rogue at all costs. No, sorry. That largely depends on the play style of the GM, of the group in general and on the agreements people make when starting an adventure. "Will this campaign have many traps? - Yes, so you should definitely have someone to spot them. / No. Maybe a few, but you're not forced to have a trapfinder to survive."

And there are many other things to say, but it's already more than enough.

#3 Actually the only true one thing in this article. Yes, magic items have much less weight, and that's a good thing for the game, unless you deliberately want the opposite (a rare occurrence).

#4 As other pointed out, the title of this one doesn't even reflect its own content (further on it even plainly contradicts the title by saying "The problem with this is that everything becomes linear"). There's no exponential growth in Pathfinder, and the difference with 5e is just in the scale of the linear growth.

The presence or absence of a cap isn't inherently something better or worse, as much as something that works or doesn't works within a given rule system. On every other aspect, it just depends on what an individual player or group likes. That said, Pathfinder does have caps, although not in the sense of a specific rule saying "this can't go beyond N", but that's long to explain, and mainly relates to the obvious cap of 20th level and the limits that come with it. Also, personally I like to have higher caps, because since we're talking of worlds with magic where every wonder is possible, I want going to the Moon to actually be possible. I like to see my already strong Barbarian to be able to have his Strength enhanced by his friends' magic beyond his mortal limits to do something really legendary.

But beyond that, "a system to know what level monsters to throw at your characters" is necessary in any game where battle has a good weight like it has in D&D and similar systems. Or do you mean that in 5e you can put an Ancient Red Dragon before your 1st-level party and they have a decent chance of beating it? Then what's the purpose of levels?

The "feeling like a video game where everything is secretly resizing itself to your character as you go" is another thing related to things I already mentioned. First, the fact that the characters must face threats they can deal with, and occasionally the very easy or the very dangerous task. It's not like you can keep sending just 1st-level Goblins against a 20th-level party, or start up with 1st-level PCs meeting the Tarrasque. Second, it depends on how the GM wants to run the game and if the gaming group as a whole likes it a way or the other. One way is that of the consistent world (which can also take many forms): the Cave of Sbaragallax is the den of a tribe of Orcs; their leader is a 5th-level Barbarian Orc when the PCs first have the chance to go clean that cave. If they wait (and do other things and gain levels meanwhile), when they finally get there the Orc leader may have increased in level himself, or he may have stayed the same, or he may have been killed by a stronger (or even weaker) rival, depending on what the GM sees fit, based on the fact that the world is alive around the PCs. Thing is, if the PCs go in the cave when they're too weak, they'll find a harder challenge, and vice-versa.

Another way is that of having a differently-set world centered on the PCs and effectively scaling the power of foes like in a videogame; said Orc leader will always be one level higher than the PCs, no matter what.

But that, as said, depends on how the GM wants to run things, not on the system used.

#5 This doesn't fall far from the sick tree of #1, really. Because the author's Pathfinder GM threw at him some things you don't see in your Lord of the Rings clone (and mind that the things he listed have been around for decades in D&D; they aren't things introduced by just Pathfinder, and you can totally trust that you'll see them in 5e too, given time), he feels like it doesn't have a classic feel. It's like saying that if you take a cappuccino in a cafè, it doesn't seem coffee anymore. You know, it's not like coffee reserves were exhausted, it's just that you and the waitress agreed that you'd have a cappuccino.

Swords, Dragons, Fireballs and stuff are all still there. There's just more stuff in case you want it. No one is shoving them in your mouth. And don't fear: 5e will add as much odd stuff. And it's just natural, because what do you want supplement books to add? 259183 types of swords and Dragons that will maintain the classic feel by introducing exaclty nothing new?

#6 and #7 These two are basically talking about the same aspects of the game.

I agree to the fact that Pathfinder's Core book keeps the mechanincs almost completely detatched from the fluff, cornering it all into the GameMastery Guide as if they had to be kept separate, and that was a huge error for me. I also agree if anyone says that Pathfinder did little to fix that, with the following books up to now, adding instead tons of additional classes and other things that improve the span of mechanical choice for players but don't help improve the game and story.

I must say, though, that what 5e does is nothing more than what Pathfinder can. Inspiration in and of itself, is basically nothing more than the old good "if a player stays true to her character, reward her", while with Background the difference is just that in Pathfinder you don't have a specific fluff line already written for it. The fabled "No longer is your Fighter a graduate from Fighter School in Fighter City. Instead, he started out at a Criminal. He gets to learn deception and stealth and how to use thieves' tools, which is quite an upgrade for a big guy with a sword. He also gets a network of criminal contacts and some role-playing suggestions." that the author likes to point out is nothing new. In Pathfinder nothing prevents your Fighter from putting skill ranks in Stealth and Disable Device (or Use Magic Device, as I mentioned earlier), and look... "magically" you have the same concept character than 5e. Even better mechanically, you don't have to take both those things; you can have Disable Device and, instead of Stealth, Knowledge (nature), for example, as long as you come up with a decent background for it.

And about the background generator that the author of this article scorns so much: first, it takes nowhere near the mentioned "couple hours" to run. 5 minutes are more than enough, unless you have some serious health issues on eyes, hands (for rolling some dice) or brain. And if right now you're shouting "it's still 4 minutes more than what 5e takes", I dare you go see it. It's online for free (by the way, something WotC sees as the devil because they fear it won't get them your money), and you'll see that it has far more aspects covered and in much greater detail than the four or five short tables in 5e. And if on the opposite, you're crying that it's too much... well, again no one is shoving them in your mouth. You can roll just the parts you like, or you can just read them and take inspiration from one or more entries. The important thing, in the end, is that you end up with a story you like and that possibly give to the GM ideas for adventure hooks. I'm not sure how good 5e is at helping with that.

Oh, and looks like the author here found it really laughable. Well, I won't go into details to avoid making this comment even longer than it is, but really, the fun he made of Pathfinder's background generator is really amusing. It's similar to seeing a child making fun of some guy who wears a long coat, saying that it resembles a woman's dress.

#8 This one starts with a question between amusing and embarassing. "Here's the weird thing, though,humans are a 10 point race and Gripplis are only 6. Clearly Gripplis are underpowered, why not just give them the ability to jump in the first place?"

Beside the fact that Gripplis are an additional race, not a core one, nor one sneakily presented as a shiny new addition you should try because it makes you more powerful, then by the same way of thinking each and every race should be on par with all others. At that point, Humans and Dwarves should have the same basic powers than Pit Fiends, because why must Pit Fiends be stronger than a common Human? And why must cats be weaker?

Simply not everything has the same inherent power level than everything else, and it's fair that way.

But in the end, all that rant about the race creation system is basically words to the wind without purpose. It isn't clear which personal distaste about it the author is trying to express.

Jumping to something else entirely, he then says: "I feel more friendly towards the new D&D races" - New? How is any of that new? The newest one among them is at least a decade old if not two...

"which fit on a single page" - A single page? Seriously? I think we didn't read the same books, and that would explain why it looked like he didn't know what he was talking about for the whole article...

"and still have some customization (such as choosing between a Hill Dwarf and a Mountain Dwarf)." - It's true that Pathfinder's Core has no customization for races, and 5e's PHB in comparison looks new and shining. But, there's a "but". There's a reason why race customization was introduced only relatively lately in Pathfinder, and that's exactly because they didn't want a thousand subraces. If you look at Pathfinder's official campaign setting book, you'll notice the core races have no variants, except Humans, which have around a dozen ethniticies that are different only in fluff, not in rules, because they wanted the setting (and the game in general) to stay subrace-clean, unlike in the past (look for example at Forgotten Realms and its 26434 Elves, 63829 Dwarves and so on, which were getting ridiculous... a subrace for every climate, for every energy, for every damn thing thay could think of).

"It's new" - Oh, uhm... well, I've already commented on that.

"it looks like it works well, and it looks way easier." - ...Which is no different than in Pathfinder, unless one has serious issues (again).

As a side note, given the author's misperceived lack of classic feel, I'd like to hear how he'll put up with the Tieflings and Dragonborn naturalized in 5e's PHB.

@Orsetto Thanks for that, I agree with your views on the article entirely. If I hadn't read it with adblock on, I'd regret reading it with adblock on.The only difference is that you'd like to hear about what the author thinks, still, and I don't. I'll be adding this website to my filter.

There are many games out there that give me an old school feeling and are not priced $49.99 per printed book. I can get Labyrinth Lord and a number other retro clones for free. On Drivethru RPG I can get any game I want without Hasbro and their BS. Hasbro is a dinosaur that should have stuck to kids toys instead of gutting Wizards and Avalon Hill games.

Reason #1 fails because "This is old. I want something new." is not "5e is better than Pathfinder." It's simply "Why I want to take a break from Pathfinder and try some 5e."

Reason #4 is complete fail. You just said "5e is less exponential because pathfinder is more linear." If Pathfinder is linear progression, then it's not exponential. Also, +6 instead of +20 is no less linear. It's just on a smaller scale, which may or may not be better. Can't tell based on your "analysis," since you don't actually give any sort of comparison other than the #s themselves. You give no information on what actual impact these two different values have on the game.

The writer of this article seems as if hired by Hasbro. The differences are not that great. Pathfinder has folks tied to the original 3rd edition, which is still far better than the video game style of 4th. Let's face it; they made 5th because 4th edition was terrible.

At this point, the Pathfinder system has evolved enough that you can't really beat it - you can just make something similar and hope it competes due to name loyalty.

I am loving Pathfinder but certainly will look into 5e since it seems to want to create a clean and simple version of old school D&D. To argue a +6 is much simpler than a +20, however is laughable. It's just a few numbers difference and if you can't handle both, you really should stick with video games imo.

First of all: Thanks for sharing, reviewing, arguing, whatever. Really. Pretty good arguments, nice information, flow in the prose. I changed to fifth edition recently, mostly inspired by "The Gamers - Dorkness Rising" which made me return to roleplay, and by the legal-free-download adventure "The Wizards Amulet.pdf" from Necromancer Games. Fifth edition has many really good approaches, outright improvements, and fan-friendly solutions. 4 Elements Monk in example closed the gap open since "Monks of the Dark Moon" from Forgotten Realms - Faerun. A monk focusing magic, much like the old Monk always had a second class to level in, and that of the Dark Moon, Goddess Shar, was Sorcerer. ;-)

"Good artists copy, great artists steal." You are wrong with that one! Artists are legally working people, while thieves are criminals, which is quite anathema to legally working employees. That saying becomes stale and shallow, when you invest the time to talk with artists, and their own experiences about getting their stuff stolen. That illegitimate attitude was, too, one of the reasons WotC lost so many customers.

Actually I was happy to read here that another visitor hinted at WotC being more the problem than whatever edition number it is...

I know many artists due the years among them. Most are friendly, plenty of the females I found gorgeous or sexy in addition. I admit artists tend to develop a kind of "Bedlam-Streak" during their careers. Still they create the new stuff, and illustrate what otherwise would be ignored.

Reminder 1: "Good thieves steal from bad persons, and great thieves have their need for attention under control."

Reminder 2: " Artist work leads to fame, and occasional luxury, a thief's 'work' more often leads into prison or clashes with the competition instead."

I'm still all in on Pathfinder. 5e seems like it has a lot of really good ideas, and I won't rule it out for the future, but what keeps me with Paizo for now are the adventure paths. Paizo writes the best adventures in the business, and I feel like I could run solid games using them for basically the next 50 years without running out of material.

5e, even if its a better system, is still a system for fantasy gaming, which is what Pathfinder is. So for me it boils down to stories. When 5e has 3 or 4 full campaigns published, a full PRD style rules site online, with all rules and monsters references, and their campaigns in PDF form, I will consider the system.

Till then, the quality of the system itself takes a distant second to the fact that I play primarily online, with my laptop right in front of me. There's no rules change they could make that would be worth having to go buy a book / store a book / go get the book whenever I want to look something up.

Hasbro has a looooooong way to go to catch Pathfinder in terms of quality and value.

One of the big things that drove traditional players away from 4e was how "wargamey" it felt. That is, the story concepts were lacking in real play because in the official books and text players weren't constantly prodded into creating interesting story features for their characters, at the same time a GM had to devote a great deal of time to figureing out how the mechanics of an encounter would scale which would take away from time dressing up locations or encounters and imagining their way through decision points in a session. For the majority of those with less time to devote to worldbuilding this results in some dry encounters where you're doing lots of math and very little storytelling.

5 doesn't solve the problem but seems to be specifically reminding both GMS and players that what makes an RPG an RPG is the role playing part. The math and rules are simpler so combat moves more smoothly with more time for elaboration and less spent adding numbers, inspiration is there to not only goad players into creating great scenes but also is limited so they are driven to use inspiration to create suspenseful moments. Backstory is there in PC creation as a key and indeed required character feature, the monster manual describes monster's personalities and locations they might be found in far beyond a simple two liner and stat box. And skill checks are broken into ability/skill proficiency which allows the GM to ask players to make checks that involve the whole party in realistic but unusual ways. For instance a Strength/Acrobatics check to scale a wall carrying a companion or a Charisma/Insight check to Sense the motives of a particularly flirty tavern patron. They've even clued GMs into how to pass time between adventures. Your party defeats the arch lichmage knight and you tell them you gain a level and a year passes before your next adventure. What did you do in that year? Did you craft armor from loot you gathered abroad? Did you travel with a trope of acrobats entertaining town to town? Did you hole up in a cubby apartment near a library and study lost arts?

The point is that streamlining the rules and limiting the number of complicated interactions has greatly reduced the amount of "crunching" needed to play a character. While at every turn and taking every opportunity the players and GM are reminded to keep telling the story. Sure memorable moments are made when you roll that crit against a harrowing foe, but it's not the 20 that's so incredible, it's the story behind that foe and how you got there that makes the experience truly exciting.

I'm glad to get away from the ridiculous, number-fellating, "you must have THIS much apserger's to play" feel of Pathfinder for the much simpler and more user-friendly 5E.

I'm sick of reading the argument: "3.crap/Crapfinder isn't bad if you have a good DM". Bollocks. If I'm a DM then what do I want to run, a cumbersome and bureaucratic punishment of a system wherein building adventures is like auditing taxes, AND punishes newer and more casual gamers BY DESIGN; or do I want to play something quick, intuitive and welcoming to new gamers (the best kind to run games for, hands down).

This might be the worst article I've ever seen on Topless Robot. #4 is a legitimate argument, but the other seven are entirely subjective and a matter of personal taste and preference. So we have 1 reason, and 7 different ways to say "Because I like it better."

I've been really enjoying 3E, especially with the group I've been DMing for the last 14 years. We play with a Beer and Pretzel approach to the game (50% encounter, 50% role-playing). We never had the itch to buy all new books when 3.5 came out (3 YEARS LATER!!!) Steampunks with guns and time traveling Doctor Who detectives never intrigued me to get into Pathfinder. I won't even mention or utter the words of the edition that came after 3.5 so we can skip that. It's in the same category of a certain Highlander movie ("SHHH! IT NEVER HAPPENED!"). I'm old school and like to keep it simple, D&D, AD&D and 3E and always with a handful of house rules (ie. critical hit chart, fumble chart, etc.). I geeked out with 2nd edition during my high school-college days. I bought all the supplements and folders. All the Darksun/SpellJamming/Birthright/Planescape/etc. campaign settings until TSR went bankrupt.

It's just a great excuse to get together with great friends and pretend to do something great.

@SGTHOUNT @ToplessRobot Though, for being a money-grab, you can just download the rules from WotC for free. The basic rules are a free PDF download. If you like it enough that you want to add Barbarian, or Druid, or Warlock or whatever, then pay the cash. Otherwise, download the PDF, see if you like it, and if not ... well, nothing lost.

@SGTHOUNT Do you think they could? Whenever they can't blame old ones for being old, or of different mindset or opinion it becomes obvious that the young ones harshly manage anything above plagiarized crap, IF they do the work at all. And from the other side: Salvatore is back, with that "The Time Machine inspired antagonist" given drow stats and ranger class. Nope, your house-rules way is best, as it is the one way of roleplay, not money-milking.

@chapmand@ToplessRobot The basic rules changed from the pdf, to the beginner set, to the officially released player's handbook, and the PDF doesn't cover anything but the sheer barebones of character creation, doesn't cover all the classes and doesn't cover all the races.

Pathfinder has all their core rulebooks with all the information on their prd site for free, all the time, and adds all the new rulebooks as they go. The only thing not on the site are the adventures.

@chapmand@ToplessRobot The basic rules changed from the pdf, to the beginner set, to the officially released player's handbook, and the PDF doesn't cover anything but the sheer barebones of character creation, doesn't cover all the classes and doesn't cover all the races.

Pathfinder has all their core rulebooks with all the information on their prd site for free, all the time, and adds all the new rulebooks as they go. The only thing not on the site are the adventures.

Your "cantina effect" party make-up was just as prevalent in 2E as it is in 3E, 3.5, or Pathfinder. I went through the Complete Book of Humanoids and literally had to pencil out creatures that would break my game. Planescape introduced fan favorites like the tiefling and aasimar. Spelljammer and Dark Sun also added to the weirdness in 2e. Its no different with the Advanced Race Guide from paizo or even additions like the Dragonborn or Goliaths in 3.5 or 4E.

Its really just a matter of playstyle and well within the GMs ability to limit what races are acceptable for the game world they are using.

@kingofvrock Enjoy! As long, as you don't mind me insisting that Mindflayers are the best player race AND going to Sigil with 'em... ;-) Neverwinter 1 had a module about industrial abuse of animals. Later all chickens broke out of cages and turned into vrocks. Real world horror and the toll of blending out what we can't defeat.

I DMed from around '82 to '91 and never used one of those random tables for anything. Oh I guess I tried to use them once but they're clearly not balanced statistically - a one in a hundred shot was as remote as things got but one in a hundred is still really common statistically speaking when you're talking about an entire world.

@Gallen_Dugall Yep - that was kinda my point. The main rule for magic items was random charts, which was basically worse than just handing them out as you saw fit. Of course, the to hits were so low you barely needed them anyway except for damage resistance.

3rd Ed magic item rules seemed a good correction at the time as they actually controlled everything but, like most things 3rd ed, it added a lot more thinking and tracking to the mix.

@Gallen_Dugall OMG. The horrid realization in Neverwinter Nights PC Games, be it one or two, no matter what expansion either: Entire dungeons, or city parts, just filled with those standard scripted treasures. It was, as if we were forced back into that 'weird treasure-tableism' you mentioned.